Those who responded to this consultation received the following email from Haringey Council:

Dear Resident or Business,

Thanks for your  feedback to our statutory consultation last year on revised parking and permit charges.   The Council’s parking policy is linked to transport policies and Borough Plan objectives, which take into account Government guidance on environmental issues by including measures to improve air quality by reducing toxic emissions from transport which can be damaging to health.    A further objective is to encourage more residents to take up less polluting forms of transport, including walking and cycling -  and to use less polluting vehicles if they need to  continue to own a car.

The Council is required to consider objections and representations received to the Statutory Consultation and then, to decide whether or not to proceed to implementation of measures.   We have considered all views and objections in detail and we delayed making any final decision while  considering how Covid related lockdowns and restrictions were impacting on travel and transport.  The Council has now decided to implement  most of the measures except for  the 25% diesel surcharge on short term on-street parking and car parks.  We are currently reconsidering this but while lockdowns were in place, we recognised the need to help support our town centres in their recovery from the impacts of the Covid lockdowns.

The Council has decided to go ahead with the majority of the proposed measures and summary details are set out below.      You may recall that the measures originally proposed in last year’s consultation were:

  • A £10 increase across all existing parking permit charge bands.
  • An £80 surcharge on all parking permits issued to diesel fuelled vehicles – including a 25% diesel surcharge on on-street and car park charges
  • A £50 surcharge on second and additional resident parking permits per household.
  • To limit permit account holders to the use of two daily visitor permits per day.
  • Increased charge for daily Visitor Permits in all Controlled Parking Zones to £4.
  • To introduce a free virtual residential parking permit for Disabled Blue Badge Holders for their home CPZ, replacing the existing Companion Badge.
  • To introduce a £20 administration fee on parking permit refunds except for visitor parking permits which will not be-refundable.

Consultation respondents have tended to take an overview of the proposed measures and to comment accordingly, rather than selecting specific individual measures. Where individual measures have been focused on, it is the diesel surcharge which is most often objected to  The wider theme of objections is that all the proposed charges are excessive, especially taking into account the economic uncertainty associated with the COVID  situation. The main objections and the Council’s responses are summarised below.  Full details are in the official report on the web – see link below

Objection: Haringey should not be introducing these charges at the present time/ this is not the time to introduce these charges.  

Council response: Haringey has committed to improving air quality by introducing measures to encourage sustainable transport choices. Poor air quality has a serious impact on the health and wellbeing of the most vulnerable - including those with respiratory problems and chronic illnesses.  Those who live or work near main roads are at particular risk of health problems caused by air pollution. We understand that many residents have been impacted economically by the Covid 19 pandemic, and that any increase in parking charges impact on those residents who own a car. However, we firmly believe that this is a time to promote measures that improve the health and well-being opportunities for all borough residents. 

Objection: Diesel surcharge is not in line with ULEZ and fails to acknowledge that modern diesel vehicles are less polluting than many petrol engine vehicles.

Council response: Consideration was given to exempting Euro 6 diesel compliant vehicles from the proposed diesel surcharge and aligning the surcharge with the Ultra-Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) criteria. However, there are well documented concerns that real world performance of vehicles may not be as good as claimed by laboratory testing. While testing under euro certification is being modified to address this concern, the majority of Euro 6 compliant vehicles in circulation would have had their certification issued under the old testing methods. This makes it very difficult for us to rely on this certification to exempt Euro 6 from the diesel surcharge.

Objection: £50 surcharge for second or more vehicles is unfair because many households, such as those with large families, need more than one vehicle.

Council response: Currently, the Council allows individuals and households within CPZs to purchase as many parking permits as they require. However, it is important that the Council discourages multiple car ownership and achieves a less congested road network. This measure raises awareness of the environmental impact of multiple car ownership but does not restrict residents parking more than one vehicle. We hope that it will encourage residents to reconsider their transport options.

Objection: 25% pay-to-park surcharge will unfairly impact those who need to drive to go shopping. It will also affect local shops / businesses and encourage more journeys to out-of-town shopping centres.

Council response: Many vehicles using our on-street and car park facilities are diesel fuelled. It would be appropriate in normal circumstances to include short stay parking in any measures being proposed to improve air quality in the borough. However, the council recognises that this may not be the appropriate time to implement this proposal. This will also aid our town centres in their recovery from the impacts of the Covid pandemic. 

Objection: The Council is only doing this to make money.

Council response: When setting or reviewing parking charges the Council considers various issues including:

  • The Council’s transport and wider policy objectives,  statutory or legal requirements that may affect the setting of fees
  • car ownership patterns,  the increasing demand for parking,  traffic management issues,  parking charges in other boroughs, cost of delivering the service
  • impact of charges on relevant stakeholders

It should also be noted that  Section 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states that any income that is generated must be paid into the parking revenue account, and any surplus ring-fenced and invested back into road maintenance / highway improvements, concessionary fares, environmental improvements and to administer the Disabled Blue Badge parking scheme.

Objection: The charges are unfair to those who cannot afford a newer car, which includes the poorest, elderly, and vulnerable / The charges are unfair to the poor and vulnerable.

Council response: Any change to parking fee structures will have an impact on residents. However, the permit charge will remain relatively low in proportion to the cost of running and maintaining a car. Average annual cost of car ownership and use is in the region of £3k. 

Objection: The charges are unfair to those who avoid using their cars, and often walk, cycle or use public transport. Unused cars do not pollute.

Council response: The only practical tool that the Council can use to incentivise the use of more fuel-efficient cars is through the parking permit and short-term parking charging structures.

 Objection: Unfair to charge residents living in a CPZ, while currently allowing outside cars to park freely. It is unfair and creates divisions in the community.

Council response: The Council reduced parking enforcement in CPZs to support NHS and key workers, as well as residents adversely effected by the Covid 19 crisis. Enforcement resumed on 6 July 2020.

Objection: Unfair to residents who do not have driveways, and increased costs still do not guarantee a parking space near to home.

Council response: In a CPZ the parking needs of residents and their visitors are prioritised. CPZs are designed so that the kerb space is managed effectively for the various user types, and to reduce commuter parking activity. This provides a greater opportunity for residents to park as close to their homes as possible.

Objection: Letters were not sent to every household about the proposed charges, not every resident was given a chance to voice an opinion.

Council response: It was not practical or cost effective to distribute letters to every household in the borough. The council is legally required to undertake a statutory consultation and advertise the appropriate Traffic Management Orders (TMOs) before implementing any changes to parking fees and charges. This means that the council must advertise the details of the proposals in local newspapers and the London Gazette. The council consulted statutory bodies such as the Police, Ambulance, Fire Brigade, Bus Operators, Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association. Other stakeholders, such as cycling, environmental and disability groups were also notified and asked to give their views.     The proposals were also advertised on the Council’s website - with web links to the TMOs.   Notices were placed on street and within the council run car parks. We also sent a mailshot to over 54,000 permit holders. The proposals were also communicated on social media platforms. The Council went beyond the statutory requirement to notify stakeholders of proposals. 

Objection: I will not support the companion badge removal due to the risk of theft and damage caused to vehicles. The companion badge also provides the user to park freely across the borough.

Council Response: The main purpose of the Companion Badge (permit) is to avoid the need for the Disabled Blue Badge to be displayed overnight when the risk of theft of the badge is highest. Many boroughs with similar schemes, have already replaced them with a free residential parking permit, which addresses the primary purpose of the concession and benefits all disabled badge holders while parked near their home. Any remaining unused time on companion badges will be refunded.

Objection: we strongly object to no refund of scratch cards. I also object to the cap on using them.

Council response: Visitors’ permits are often purchased in large quantities because of their relatively low cost. Residents subsequently request a refund on unused permits or those expiring. As charges for those permits are relatively low, the cost of processing refunds often exceeds the value.   The Council will be replacing the current scratch card (visitor) permits with virtual permits through the new IT system.

Both the full consultation report and the formal Council report can be found on the website.    Please click on the link below to access the report which runs from pages 141 - 252

The consultation report is also available on the completed parking consultations page of the website.

We thank all those who responded to the Statutory Consultation with objections or support.  Your feedback and insights have been very helpful. 



You need to be a member of Alexandra Park Neighbours to add comments!

Join Alexandra Park Neighbours

Email me when people reply –

To add a post - click on +Add new Post at top right (if it is not there, you are not signed in - see link at top of page); fill in the details, then click on black button below.

To later edit it, click on the post header to display it, then on +Edit at top right.

If you wish to give somebody your contact details, you may prefer to do so by personal message (click on little envelope at top of page, then on +Compose) rather than putting it in a post which is visible to everyone.


Click on an advert for more info.